[MR] Musings on combat archery

[Joe Pepersack]

Greetings, good gentles all.

Let me preface this missive by noting that I am not a combat archer, just 
a lowly stick-jock who occasionally takes to the field.

Combat archery is perhaps the single most contentious issue facing heavy 
weapons fighters. Virtually everyone I have met, from Duke to newbie, has 
a strong opinion on the matter.  Like worried mothers have been saying 
since the dawn of time, "Be careful - you could poke your eye out".  Just 
because it is a cliché, does not mean that it's not a valid observation.  
Ours is a dangerous game, and we owe it to ourselves to make it as safe 
as we can.

I was introduced to SCA heavy combat in the Kingdom of the Outlands, 
where the only authorized combat arrow was the golf tube, and combat 
archers had to be fully armored. (I do not know if this is still the case 
or not, as I left the Outlands six years ago.)  Golf tubes are probably 
the safest combat arrow we have; I have never heard of anyone being 
injured by a golf tube arrow.  Unfortunately golf tubes are also the 
least realistic and effective combat arrows.  While not unblemished, the 
safety record of the current wood-shaft combat arrows is still pretty 
impressive - the fact that there has been only ONE major safety incident 
mentioned in this debate shows this to be so.  On the other hand, this 
debate would not be taking place if there was not the perception (founded 
or not) that the arrows we use are unsafe, or at least not as safe as 
they should be.  

By long-standing tradition, we do not introduce new equipment onto the 
list field until it has undergone extensive trials in experimental form, 
allowing both fighters and marshals to gain familiarity with the new 
weapon.  The proposed changes have not undergone this testing, as far as 
I have been able to determine.  Forcing the adoption of a new, untested 
weapon under the severe time constraints proposed seems to me to be a 
recipe for disaster.  The use of an untested design could very well 
introduce a new safety risk, exchanging a known problem for an unknown 
one.

The question we must ask ourselves is if this is a genuine crisis or not. 
Are the current wood-shaft arrows too dangerous to allow on the field?  
If the Marshallate and Crown decides that this is the case, the obvious 
immediate response would be to temporarily ban all combat arrows except 
golf tubes until a new blunt design can be tested and approved.  As a 
less drastic alternative, blunts can be demoted to the status of 
experimental weapons, requiring that the MIC-Event explicitly authorize 
their use.  Both of these alternatives resolve the immediate safety 
concerns without disregarding our existing rules for adopting new 
weapons.

Another possible (and far less drastic) solution is to amend section A.2 
(eyewear) of the Society armor rules to make eye protection (in the form 
of sports glasses, safety goggles, welded mesh on the helm, etc.)  
"strongly recommended, but not required", similar to the current rules 
for thigh armor.  This addendum could be made at the Kingdom level as 
well.  This change will protect fighters against eye hazards other than 
arrow shafts.  Eye protection COULD be made mandatory for combat archery 
scenarios, but this is probably unnecessary.  Fighters who are concerned 
can wear eye protection or sit out that battle; those who feel safe 
without eye protection can go ahead and keep fighting just as they have 
been.  Matters of personal safety are best left up to the individual. 

Let us not ignore the fact that any warranted marshal, acting as 
MIC-Event, need not permit combat archery at that event if he or she 
feels that the risk is unacceptable.  (At least that is my interpretation 
of Atlantian law).  If combat archery is ruled to be "experimental", this 
will force the MIC-Event decide to include it or not.  Fighters always 
have the option to sit out any battle, without dishonor, if they feel the 
scenario is unsafe or unpalatable.

Of the alternatives I presented, I feel the best is to add eye protection 
to the list of recommended equipment.   This option will have the least 
impact and be the least disruptive, as it addresses all the safety 
concerns that have been expressed without forcing anyone to invest in new 
equipment.

Let us remind ourselves that our goal is to make the game we play safer 
and more enjoyable for all of us -- not to grind our personal axes or 
gratify our own egos.  I recognize that this is an emotional issue, but 
we cannot allow strong emotion to impair our reasoning.  Whatever 
decision is finally made, it should be done with due consideration to the 
laws, traditions, and ideals which define our Society.

In Service,
Tassach MacTearlach
MKA Joe Pepersack